Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[number6]

Because it makes for better press and his publicity machine to claim the victim than to actually admit that he has no talent and his product sucks. Instead he blames Paramount for everything, talks trash about Star Trek and blames lack of funds for the reason everything looks cheap.

 

[Irishman]

Because it makes for better press and his publicity machine to claim the victim than to actually admit that he has no talent and his product sucks. Instead he blames Paramount for everything, talks trash about Star Trek and blames lack of funds for the reason everything looks cheap.

Where's Paramount's scathing rebuke?

 

[number6]

Because it makes for better press and his publicity machine to claim the victim than to actually admit that he has no talent and his product sucks. Instead he blames Paramount for everything, talks trash about Star Trek and blames lack of funds for the reason everything looks cheap.

Where's Paramount's scathing rebuke?

Why do they need one?
There is a published book about the making of DS9, where the creative team chronicle the origin of their ideas for the series.

JMS just sounds like he's bitter because his show stinks and DS9 doesn't. Best to ignore his sniveling and get the job done, whereas JMS took constant pot shots at Star Trek during the whole production, yet tried to win over Star Trek fans with hiring their writers then throwing them under the bus and writing the whole show himself. The show was full of suck and JMS couldn't make it better, so he tried to accuse Paramount of stealing his (already stolen) ideas.

 

[Irishman]

Because it makes for better press and his publicity machine to claim the victim than to actually admit that he has no talent and his product sucks. Instead he blames Paramount for everything, talks trash about Star Trek and blames lack of funds for the reason everything looks cheap.

Where's Paramount's scathing rebuke?

Why do they need one?
There is a published book about the making of DS9, where the creative team chronicle the origin of their ideas for the series.

JMS just sounds like he's bitter because his show stinks and DS9 doesn't. Best to ignore his sniveling and get the job done, whereas JMS took constant pot shots at Star Trek during the whole production, yet tried to win over Star Trek fans with hiring their writers then throwing them under the bus and writing the whole show himself. The show was full of suck and JMS couldn't make it better, so he tried to accuse Paramount of stealing his (already stolen) ideas.

So, Paramount isn't going to defend the integrity of their property? Bah...

I don't believe his show stunk. Not nearly as much as DS9 stunk. Nor as much as Voy stunk.

 

[number6]

Where's Paramount's scathing rebuke?

Why do they need one?
There is a published book about the making of DS9, where the creative team chronicle the origin of their ideas for the series.

JMS just sounds like he's bitter because his show stinks and DS9 doesn't. Best to ignore his sniveling and get the job done, whereas JMS took constant pot shots at Star Trek during the whole production, yet tried to win over Star Trek fans with hiring their writers then throwing them under the bus and writing the whole show himself. The show was full of suck and JMS couldn't make it better, so he tried to accuse Paramount of stealing his (already stolen) ideas.

So, Paramount isn't going to defend the integrity of their property? Bah...

I don't believe his show stunk. Not nearly as much as DS9 stunk. Nor as much as Voy stunk.

There was never any formal complaint filed and JMS has no proof. It's really up to him to prove that Paramount "stole" his idea and frankly the "evidence" he brings up to support is pretty flimsy at best. He's just looking for a controversial way to market his lackluster product and to turn his case into us vs. them. I watched both shows and there is no question where the talent pool was.

 

[RyuRoots]

the real issue is why the pro-serialization (in this context, pro-DS9) refuse to accept the legitimacy of another choice.

Except that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone refuses to accept the legitimacy of another choice.

I gave several excellent examples of double standards. Ignoring the evidence just shows how unserious you are.

Your standard of "evidence" is the same as Anwar's: you pull shit out of thin air that nobody actually said and use it against them.

But this is all besides the point: your whole post is an ad hominem argument. Even if everyone in this thread actually were the caricatures you make them out to be, believing that all episodic TV sucks and every opinion being a double standard -- none of this would have any bearing on the validity of the complaints being made. You're simply replying to every point with "Hah, you're just saying that because you like DS9!", shirking the responsibility of actually addressing the point being made rather than the person making it.

I'm not going to root through the shit that most of these posts are to find Ryu Root's alleged refutation.

You don't have to "root through" anything, his refutation is the post directly under yours. You claimed there were only four Borg-centric episodes, which is grossly untrue.

Good points, but I wanted to come in and note that my username is all one word and it's RyuRoots, not RyuRoot. So in this situation, it'd be RyuRoots' instead, when referring to me. ...don't mind me, just a tad of OCD.

 

[TheGodBen]

Why would JMS have lied?

I never said he lied, I said I disagree with his interpretation of what happened. We know that he gave his early series bible to Paramount when he tried to sell them the show, but I disagree with his opinion that Berman and Piller based DS9 around those notes. There's not even any evidence that they knew the notes existed.

JMS put a lot of work into creating Babylon 5, it was a labour of love, and it took him a very long time to find a studio that was willing to make his show a reality. Meanwhile, the guys at Star Trek didn't have to do all that work, they were asked by Paramount executives to make another Star Trek show, and it could have been the biggest pile of crap imaginable, but it would have been green-lit because it had the Star Trek name attached to it. And DS9 nearly destroyed his dream, because PTEN were reluctant to make another sci-fi show set on a space-station while DS9 was on the air, and he had to fight PTEN to get his show made. Given those circumstances, I can understand his bitterness towards Star Trek, and DS9 in particular, but he is hardly addressing the issue from an objective standpoint.

Maybe Berman and Piller did steal some of his ideas, but as someone that watched and enjoyed both shows, I don't think the similarities justify the claims.

 

[exodus]

So, to boil all this down to the most important part,

I'm right.

Well, no, not unless you accept JMS's interpretation of events to be true. We know that JMS submitted his series bible to Paramount several years before DS9 or Babylon 5 made it to air, but Paramount is a big company and there is no proof (that I'm aware of) that Rick Berman or Michael Piller read, or even knew about, that bible. They say that Paramount came to them asking for another Trek spin-off show, but they didn't want to do two starship based shows at the same time, so they decided to either do a space-station show or a show set on a colony. Originally, they were leaning towards doing the colony-based show, and there's even some early sketches of what the colony might have looked like on the DVD special features, but in the end they settled on doing it on a space station because they wanted to film it in a controlled environment rather doing a lot of location shooting.

As for his claims that the rest of the show was similar, I don't see it. There are similarities, but there's also a lot of differences, and there's even situations where the DS9 writers introduced elements that B5 did later, such as the introduction of the small, fast and powerful warship Defiant/White Star. And at the end of the day, the characters are quite different and go on unique journeys, and since DS9 and B5 are both character shows as much as they are action-adventure shows, they are quite different. I like them both for what they are, preferring DS9 because I watched it at an earlier age.

Why would JMS have lied?

Exactly.

Repeated:
"Straczynski has stated on numerous occasions that he thinks Paramount may have used his bible and scripts as the basis for DS9's first season. He doesn't even claim any points about the Whitestar/Defiant, which both came many seasons later."
Besides, if Paramount knew of said bible and then went to Berman to propose the idea for DS9, then Paramount passed along the concept to them. Berman/Pillar didn't have to be made aware of where it came from.

 

[Anwar]

And anyways, its not like JMS invented the idea of space stations, jump points/wormholes, aliens with religion, or a war against a powerful foe.

 

[number6]

And anyways, its not like JMS invented the idea of space stations, jump points/wormholes, aliens with religion, or a war against a powerful foe.

Of course he did, at least according to JMS and his fans.

 

[zar]

Why would JMS have lied?

He didn't lie, he just had an opinion which may or may not have been true. You're assuming his opinion has authority.

I don't see how this even belongs here. Why don't you make a thread called "Why is the B5 community so negative about DS9?"

 

[number6]

Back OT:

On it's worst day VOY was better than B5.

 

[Anwar]

I wouldn't say that. At all, really. B5 was a great show. It had some of the worst acting I've seen, but they managed to keep me interested regardless.

VOY, well the whole thing was just so damned rushed. It needed more time for them to work out the kinks in the premise itself. But it was still good and gave us some of the best moments in the entire history of the show. Hell, despite what some folks think of the story "Scorpion", it made it into the top 20 list of best Trek episodes ever in the Sci-Fi Monthly magazine.

 

[exodus]

Why would JMS have lied?

He didn't lie, he just had an opinion which may or may not have been true.

It very well could be.
His production bible would have specific details such as ideas, concepts, personal thoughts, designs, even sketch ideas, etc that would go beyond the knowledge of someone simply watching the show and comparing the similarities they see. The only ones that would know such details are those that read it. If he saw such specific details that would be unique to his ideas, then his claim holds water and is more than just opinion.

 

[Harvey]

The last time JMS was explaining how Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ripped off Babylon 5, his source was a second-hand account of actor's gossip (A B5 actor met a DS9 actor at a party; the DS9 actor said that they got their ideas from B5; the B5 actor later told JMS). That explanation can be found through the Babylon Podcast (episode #161 or #162, I believe).

JMS is understandably bitter, given that the production of DS9 almost ended his pet-project in pre-production, but I've never seen anything other than second-hand gossip and fans presenting loose parallels to support the accusation. Really, both shows are quite enjoyable, and enjoyable based on their own merits. I wouldn't have every season of B5 as well as all 15 scriptbooks if I thought otherwise.

11. Star Trek has always had some abominable stories. Thankfully, most of them could be skipped because the series was episodic. The difficulty is understanding how someone could like a serialized show whose Big Story is a disaster.

As others have pointed out, even DS9 wasn't especially serialized. The closest the series got was the 7-part occupation arc and the 10-part final chapter, but those are hardly the majority out of 176 episodes. The desire for stronger continuity and more serialized elements I've seen in this thread has hardly been close to a call for Star Trek: Voyager to become, say, the highly serialized 24.

 

[flemm]

Why would JMS have lied?

He doubtless did not lie because there is nothing in his statements on the subject that can be regarded as factual other than his submission of a B5 show bible to Paramount in the late 80s (as I recall). Everything else is suppositions and allegations based on broad similarities between B5's premise and DS9's.

There is no reason to discount JMS' view, but their is no reason to subscribe to it unequivocally either, given that his position is far from unbiased: his show was up against a better known, better rated commodity. It was therefore in his best interests to present his product as "the real deal," and the competing product as derivative. He doubtless believed he was being victimized, but belief is not fact.

As far as I know, the only person involved with DS9 who has directly commented on the matter is Robert Hewitt Wolfe who stated plainly that any and all accusations of plagiarism are utter bullshit. Just as with JMS there is no reason to discount his point of view off-hand, but no reason to accept what he says as gospel either. RHW may have never been influenced in the slightest way by anything on B5, but perhaps the B5 influence was felt only very early in the conceptual stages before RHW came on board.

The reality is probably somewhere in between, due to the phenomenon known as concurrent development. Basically you end up with a situation where Berman and Piller present two ideas: a colony concept and a space station concept. The space station concept gets a more enthusiastic response from the suits at Paramount, partly due to their awareness that B5 is in production, and so on. Once the shows are both on the air you end up with a classic case of rivalry between competing shows that doubtless influenced both products to a degree, though probably less than over-zealous fan scrutiny would suggest, due to the fact that many of the similarities are very broad and related to common sci-fi/fantasy tropes that often appear in shows of this type.

 

[exodus]

Wouldn't J. Mikey saying that Paramount stole his ideas be a form of slander against them if it wasn't true?
If so, wouldn't Paramount have the right to sue him?

Just asking.

 

[flemm]

Wouldn't J. Mikey saying that Paramount stole his ideas be a form of slander against them if it wasn't true?
If so, wouldn't Paramount have the right to sue him?

Just asking.

If what JMS said could legally be considered slander, then I think the actual truth of the matter would be rather irrelevant, since JMS can't prove that his point of view is the accurate one in any concrete manner. Example: person A might actually be guilty of a crime, but unless I can mount a criminal case against person A or file a formal complaint, I cannot publish newspaper articles calling person A a criminal (this would be grounds for a lawsuit because accusing someone of a crime is one of those relatively rare cases where the malice is clear enough to support a lawsuit).

However, what JMS says is deliberately oblique: "Paramount was trying to squash my show" is just a banal statement of the reality of competition between networks for a finite audience, whereas "they know what happened, and I know what happened" contains no concrete accusations at all. "They may have used my scripts" is similarly indirect. Basically there is nothing there that could be construed as a basis for a lawsuit involving slander, where malice has to be proven.

Regardless, it would be a pointless exercise, from Berman and Piller's point if view, since even a successful lawsuit for slander would not prove whether the allegations were true or not. Similarly, it makes little sense for Berman and Piller to make some kind of bold public statement that they did not in fact plagiarize any of JMS' ideas. They have nothing to gain by responding to the issue. It is difficult to prove a negative. This is one of the reasons why making unfounded accusations can be such a dubious practice, ethically speaking.

The main person who had a lot to gain by making this an issue was JMS. That doesn't make what he says untrue, but it means we should consider his point of view with a certain amount of scepticism.

Basically I think fans of either show who believe their favorite is pure and untainted by the other's influence are probably kidding themselves. In the end, it matters little, since both shows ended up being produced and, despite all the controversy, they are only superficially similar.

 

[exodus]

Wouldn't J. Mikey saying that Paramount stole his ideas be a form of slander against them if it wasn't true?
If so, wouldn't Paramount have the right to sue him?

Just asking.

If what JMS said could legally be considered slander, then I think the actual truth of the matter would be rather irrelevant, since JMS can't prove that his point of view is the accurate one in any concrete manner. Example: person A might actually be guilty of a crime, but unless I can mount a criminal case against you or file a formal complaint, I cannot publish newspaper articles calling you a criminal.

Well considering none of us actually know what his production notes contained, do we know for sure that he doesn't have concrete evidence? Aren't we just assuming he doesn't? Truth be told, the only ones that know for sure are him and Paramount. We don't even know for sure how much Berman & Pillar were involved. For all we know they could have been given an outline of the shows idea and have no idea until J.Mikey spoke up that the idea could have come from him.

Without being on the actual inside track, aren't we just speculating either way? Shouldn't we be skeptical of both sides and not just J. Mikey?

 

[flemm]

Well considering none of us actually know what his production notes contained, do we know for sure that he doesn't have concrete evidence?

There is no way to be sure, but given his strong feelings on the subject, it seems extremely likely that any concrete evidence of plagiarism would have resulted in a case against Paramount. This alone means little, though, since it would be hard to prove such a thing, and Paramount might actually have used some of his ideas, and yet leave JMS without sufficient grounds for a legal case against them.

However, the point stands about slander: even if you are accusing someone of a crime that the individual may have indeed committed, it's still slander unless you can make a formal case against that person. At any rate I don't think anything JMS has said on the subject could remotely be construed as slander, legally speaking (in my admittedly inexpert opinion).

Without being on the actual inside track, aren't we just speculating either way? Shouldn't we be skeptical of both sides and not just J. Mikey?

Sure. As I said in my earlier post, there is no reason to accept what anyone says on the matter as the unadulterated truth.